Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: AMC Spending $600 Million to Remodel Theaters With Larger Chairs, Fewer Seats

This is topic AMC Spending $600 Million to Remodel Theaters With Larger Chairs, Fewer Seats in forum Ground Level at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=5;t=002821

Posted by Terry Lynn-Stevens (Member # 7349) on 07-27-2014, 12:31 AM:

Now at the Movies: Fully Reclining Seats

The nation's second-largest movie theater chain is spending hundreds of millions of dollars outfitting a number of theaters with La-Z-Boy-type seats that fully recline—a conversion that removes up to two-thirds of a given auditorium's seating capacity. It's a less-is-more approach to a business that has long thought bigger was better.

But AMC's counterintuitive success with the program has converted skeptical competitors and become integral to the company's pitch to new investors.

The conversions are AMC's highest-profile campaign since it was purchased for $2.6 billion by China-based Dalian Wanda Group Corp. in 2012 and went public last December. The company plans to spend about $600 million over the next five years to "reseat" 1,800 of its nearly 5,000 screens. The renovations typically cost $350,000 to $500,000 per auditorium, with landlords often shouldering some of the cost.

Theater operators spent years building tricked-out multiplexes with more than a dozen huge auditoriums. AMC Chief Executive Gerry Lopez says he is now banking on quality over quantity. AMC plans to wait about a year after upgrading its theaters before raising ticket prices.

The conversions highlight a liability facing the country's biggest film exhibitors: a supply of outdated theaters that rarely sell out, yet would be costly to tear down and rebuild.

Attendance in renovated AMC auditoriums has leapt 80%, on average, despite the drastic reduction in capacity to sometimes fewer than 70 seats. The company declined to say what the average before-and-after attendance numbers were, though Mr. Lopez acknowledged that the biggest attendance boosts would come in theaters that were weak performers, some of which were losing money.

The conversions are occurring only in certain places: Busy venues in major markets like Los Angeles or New York don't need cushy seats to attract customers, so it doesn't make sense to cut their capacities. In a second wave of conversions at better-performing theaters, AMC is planning to install seats that don't recline as far back, so just half of the capacity is lost.

Box-office revenue was up more than 60% at the 37 AMC theaters that had been fully reseated in the first quarter of this year, said Mr. Lopez.

Removing seats and filling more of the remaining ones "doesn't conceptually make sense," said Eric Wold, an analyst at B. Riley & Co. But he is encouraged by data showing the changes bring customers back more often and siphon traffic from competing theaters in an area.

Overall domestic movie attendance has stayed relatively flat over the past 10 years, with the number of tickets sold in the U.S. slipping 1.5% from 2012 to 2013, according to the Motion Picture Association of America. The decline comes amid growing competition from video-on-demand streaming services like Netflix Inc. NFLX -0.83% and other entertainment options.

"There are no more bodies coming through the door," said Mr. Wold. "So you have to find something to get them to come back more often or pay more."

To that end, the country's major movie-theater chains have beefed up the concession stand with options like chicken fingers and mozzarella sticks; expanded the number of 3-D and large-format offerings; and shifted to digital projection that many viewers think produces a sharper image on screen.

"For all of us, it becomes part of the arrows in our quiver," said Tim Warner, chief executive at Cinemark Holdings Inc., CNK -1.06% which has some recliner theaters.

Regal Entertainment Group, RGC -3.20% the country's largest exhibitor, has ramped up its reseating efforts in the wake of AMC's success, and plans to have 25 theaters across its circuit outfitted by the end of the year—some in markets where a competitor has introduced the concept, said David Ownby, Regal's chief financial officer. The chain is taking a more-cautious approach than AMC, spending less on the conversions and waiting to see how the theaters perform before planning more.

Mr. Lopez, a former Starbucks Corp. executive who joined AMC in 2009, was told by industry peers that the program would never work. But he had come from a company accustomed to teaching consumers new habits—like the $3 coffee, he said.

Mr. Lopez attributes the jump in attendance to several factors. Some reseated theaters have full dine-in capabilities, offering a food-and-drink menu comparable to an Applebee's restaurant. That allows moviegoers to consolidate their evening activities.

The reseated theaters attract more midweek audiences than normal theaters, and tend to draw more adults, who pay higher ticket prices than teens or young children.

AMC typically doesn't change ticket prices in the first year after construction to "seed" behavior, said Mr. Lopez, but the admission fee goes up in subsequent years. Then, if a regular theater raises ticket prices 25 cents, tickets to a reseated auditorium might go up $1 or $1.25, he said.

Collecting those pricier tickets allows for some bargaining power with Hollywood studios. AMC can argue for better terms on how it splits ticket revenue with studios if it can show higher-priced sales are coming from its theaters. "We remind them of that all the time," said Mr. Lopez.

Costs quickly move beyond the auditorium, said Mr. Lopez, who realized at the chain's first reseated theater that customers in cushy seats wouldn't tolerate subpar bathrooms or lobbies. "If we're going to do this, we do the full monty," he said.

Now at the Movies: Fully Reclining Seats

Posted by Geoff Jones (Member # 3668) on 07-27-2014, 08:11 AM:

Fewer people paying higher prices... It seems to be a common theme in the last few years.

I wonder if that is a good long-term strategy.

Bravo to the journalist for the accuracy of this statement:

quote: Terry Lynn-Stevens
and shifted to digital projection that many viewers think produces a sharper image on screen.

Posted by Martin McCaffery (Member # 37) on 07-27-2014, 08:38 AM:

quote: Terry Lynn-Stevens
"If we're going to do this, we do the full monty," he said.

I don't think this means what he thinks it means [evil]

Posted by Terry Lynn-Stevens (Member # 7349) on 07-27-2014, 08:35 PM:

quote: Geoff Jones
Fewer people paying higher prices... It seems to be a common theme in the last few years.

]

That seems to be the reality. Until the studios figure out how to get the 16-24 into movies like the generations before them, declining attendance and higher ticket prices will continue.

I am all for the better seats idea, while adding a dollar or two to the ticket price, it is not something I like to see, but it is the reality of the situation.

Posted by Jonathan Goeldner (Member # 4854) on 07-27-2014, 10:14 PM:

and yet AMC has great comfortable seats in the 'over 21' screens/auditoriums at Mazza Galleria - but the upkeep and maintenance of the seats is a joke. So you put in nice seats and yet they let them go to pot. And don't get me started how patrons think and act they can put their nasty ass feet and legs all over the seat in front of them - I don't want to see your gross as !@#$ feet in flip flops in my field of view of the screen, or even to the left or right of my shoulder - this isn't your goddamn living room.

Landmark Bethesda added new nice larger seats, but somehow they completely forgot about the distance from the edge of the seat to the back of the seat in front of it. Trying to get to your seat with patrons not standing up, is an obstacle of sorts, not stepping on their feet or accidently socking the patron in the head that's sitting front of that person.

Posted by Buck Wilson (Member # 5885) on 07-28-2014, 12:05 AM:

That digital projection quote is pure gold.

Posted by Lyle Romer (Member # 1266) on 07-28-2014, 06:09 AM:

This is part of the direction that the industry needs to go. Movie theatres have to move from being like a McDonalds to at least a TGI Fridays.

If people are going to pay a premium (and even regular prices are a premium in this era) to see a movie at a theatre, they need to be given an experience.

In addition to better seats, hopefully they will have properly masked screens. Icing on the cake would be Atmos in the largest several auditoriums of a complex, and well equipped 7.1 in the rest.

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 07-28-2014, 08:21 PM:

1) I never really understood why, to enjoy a movie, people needed to strap on feeding bag.

2) I will never really understand why, to enjoy a movie, people need to fully recline, except maybe in an Omnimax theatre. We are always complaining that people now act like they are in their living rooms instead of in a cinema; now they are going to act like they are in their bedrooms.

Keep the silly reclining seats and how about putting in some masking and even (gasp!) a screen curtain. How about, now that they are going raise the price yet again, doing away with screen advertizing?! Better they spend those millions on upgrading their sound systems (Atmos anyone?) and how about going to dual projection or even installing laser light engines? People want a real CINEMA experience, not a sleeping car experience.

Posted by Randy Stankey (Member # 64) on 07-28-2014, 09:46 PM:

People don't go to theaters because the movies are great.
They don't go because of super duper sound systems or because of digital or film projectors.
They don't want extra cushy seats or gourmet snacks to eat.

We've seen Hollywood take in record figures in years when most people would classify the movies as mediocre at best.
We've all seen theaters with crappy projection and terrible sound systems that stay in business when logic might tell us that they shouldn't.
We've gone through eras where theaters had wooden seats, to upholstered, high-back, rocking seats, to stadium seats and, now, to extra-plush, reclining seats.

All of this crap goes in cycles. The expense to build and run a state of the art theater keeps getting higher and higher. It might never send.

People don't return to theaters, over and over again, because of some gimmicks or gewgaws. They go back because they were treated well. The people who work at the theater made them feel welcome and helped them have a good time.

It isn't simply "customer service." It isn't simply smiling and giving people what they want,

It is all about talking **TO** the customer and not talking AT them.
It is about listening to people. Hearing what they have to say, not just when they have a complaint. Looking them in the eye when you sell them tickets. Occasionally telling (situationally appropriate) jokes.

You don't have to be best friends with your customers but you do have to be friendly. That is what 90% of theaters lack... Friendly employees who act like they give a shit about the customer.

Theaters could install vibrating, shiatsu massage chairs but it wouldn't mean anything if their employees are surly and treat customers like cattle.

AMC could probably save a lot of money if they took one tenth of the amount they are spending on cushy, reclining chairs and spent it on hiring employees who give a rat's ass about customers.

Posted by Buck Wilson (Member # 5885) on 07-28-2014, 10:27 PM:

It's hard not to treat customers like cattle when that's how every theater for the last 30 years was designed to run.

I don't go a single weekend without thinking "This is disgusting. This is just a money factory. Pump the thousands of cattle to box, squeeze the wallet. Pump them to concession, double squeeze the wallet. Pump them into a holding tank and then pump them out ASAP." It's just a cattleyard, no doubt about it.

Cleaning auditoriums, I can't help but think they likely wouldn't at all need cleaned save for the rare true accidental spill IF the establishment actually respected the customer as a person rather than a dollar sign.

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 07-28-2014, 10:52 PM:

quote: Randy Stankey
AMC could probably save a lot of money if they took one tenth of the amount they are spending on cushy, reclining chairs and spent it on hiring employees who give a rat's ass about customers.

This!

It's not as if movie seats have just been so uncomfortable that people have stayed away from cinemas for the last hundred years. Actually, many live theaters (especially older ones) have truly uncomfortable seats, yet have no trouble charging $100 and up per ticket. And people still pay that because they enjoy the entertainment that is being provided. Same for many sports venues, especially older ones.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 07-28-2014, 11:13 PM:

I'm against recliners, because people will just fall asleep in them, or they'll be too tempting for horny youngsters to have sex in them. I'm all for softer, more cushy seating but people should stay upright.

I guess I don't really understand the whole "Money factory" argument. If you want to have a complex with a lot of screens you're going to have a lot of people coming through, and if you have that you need things to be efficient. Efficiency isn't bad, but it can seem "cold."

These days with land prices what they are, a single screen castle-plex won't work in a big city; you need multi-screens to stay afloat. This is all because of the "gotta-have-it-RIGHT-NOW" mentality we have fostered in our society, combined with the 90-days-or-less-to-video mentality of the movie industry, combined with the high cost of being in this business today. You HAVE TO have those thousands of people coming through like cattle or else you don't have a business. There aren't enough weekends in the theatrical window for it to work any other way. The studios have done this to the industry by flogging the release date of their movies in advertising, and then releasing the video too soon.

Having said all that, and I don't know about everywhere of course, but here are my biggest pet peeves of the "big" theaters I've been in (mostly in Montana, Utah, Colorado and Florida):

- Not enough people staffing the ticket counter (such as 5 ticket stations, but only two of them staffed even though it's Friday night)

- Similar problems at the concession. There is a Carmike in Billings which has at least 10 concession stations at two counters. I swear the counter on the right has never been used, or at least I've never seen it being used.

- Concession people who look disgusting (too many piercings in the lips or whatever) and aren't friendly, or can't understand a simple request such as "extra ice"

- Concession prices -- they are ridiculous. I know that's where most of the profit has to come from, but $7 for a kiddie tray? $6 for a soda when you can buy the same thing at a gas station for $1? Come on. Four bucks for a "theater size" box of Dots? Our large soda is $2.75 and we sell a buttload of them.

- Auditoriums not cleaned between shows

- An overall "don't-give-a-shit" feeling among the staff. This is something you can feel in the air when a place has it.

Now having said all THAT, I am convinced that if many of the gripers about the state of today's exhibition could magically transport back to the 1940s and see what moviegoing was like then, they would beg and plead to come back to 2014. I have a picture of the outside of my theater taken in 1942, and guess what's in the picture? A horde of people waiting to get in. Inside the building, back then there was no concession stand at all; we had 500 seats, about a third of which had no padding (today we have 194 Greystone loungerbacks); and movies that were six months old, or older, because there just weren't many prints made in those days. In the biggest city in Montana, Billings, back then there were only three screens (as far as I know) and the movies were old by the time they got them, too.

Today's moviegoing isn't perfect but it isn't all bad either.

Posted by Buck Wilson (Member # 5885) on 07-29-2014, 12:00 AM:

Oh I never said the days of yesteryore were better, I wouldn't even know. I wasn't there. I was only suggesting the megahuge plexes in even larger theater chains just push from every angle for it to be that efficient sterile heartless environment. Employees typically act like "I don't give a fuck" for a reason. And there's only two registers out of 10 because the district manager wants to look good so he cuts payroll allowance by half. It's all about the profits, not the customer, is all I'm saying. It drives me crazy.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 07-29-2014, 12:15 AM:

I agree you on those points. I guess it's happened because these are public companies that have to answer to shareholders, and the only language they speak is "dividends" (or lack thereof). I wonder how many stockholders Regal or AMC or Carmike have that never go to movies?

Posted by Buck Wilson (Member # 5885) on 07-29-2014, 01:02 AM:

Too many apparently.

Even if they do go, do they know better? Do they know what they're missing? Do they care?

Posted by Randy Stankey (Member # 64) on 07-29-2014, 06:35 AM:

quote: Buck Wilson
It's all about the profits, not the customer, is all I'm saying.

Customers **ARE** the profit!

quote: Mike Blakesley
I guess it's happened because these are public companies that have to answer to shareholders, and the only language they speak is "dividends" (or lack thereof).

Stockholders didn't tell the companies to spend $600 million to rebuild theaters then staff them full of idiots.

It costs ZERO dollars to be nice to people.

quote: Buck Wilson
It drives me crazy.

That's no drive. It's more like a short walk. (JK)

What AMC is doing is nice but, to me, it seems more like they are trying to use a helicopter just to cross the street. Now, THAT is crazy! [Big Grin]

Posted by Lyle Romer (Member # 1266) on 07-29-2014, 09:57 AM:

The problem that AMC (probably more than any other chain has) is that their gigaplex idea that worked great in the late 90's doesn't work anymore due to the overhead.

When they originally came up with the idea, it was somewhat brilliant. Essentially, instead of having one 500 seat auditorium showing a film they would now have two, 300 seat auditoriums. For the busy movies, 2 prints in 500 seat auditoriums could be replaced by four, 300 seat auditoriums.

I'm not bad at math. I know 300x2=600, not 500. The capacity increased a little bit.

By spreading the shows out, they could get great efficiency by requiring roughly half the staff to serve the same number of customers. It also greatly increased staff productivity because of nearly continuous shows throughout the complex.

This is one issue with a standard 8-12 plex. You are essentially paying employees to stand around doing very little for a lot of time. For example, you have a set of shows between 7PM and 8PM. Then the next set of shows is 9:45PM to 10:30PM. For an hour and 45 minutes, the staff is either taking breaks or mostly standing around talking to each other. Yes, there is "some" work going on like restocking and cleaning but it doesn't take more than a few minutes to accomplish that stuff.

Of course, back in the late 90's when September rolled around, an AMC 24 plex could hold more product and play 20 different movies (dual prints of the top 4) instead of running multiple prints of 10. This would allow the business model to work in the slow season.

Today, you can't find 20 titles in September that will do nearly enough business to offset the overhead of a modern megaplex. That is why AMC is doing this project. It is to try and get higher revenue per person. Also, the reduced capacity lets them utilize the available seats more efficiently.

At the very busy (last time I could see figures a few years ago) Downtown Disney 24 in Orlando, AMC turned several (6 I think) auditoriums into dine-in theaters. They are essentially operating a conventional 18 plex and a dine in 6 plex at the same location.

Regarding the comments about "why don't they spend $600 million on payroll instead to get friendly employees?"

I'm sure that they are financing this conversion. Let's say it is over 5 years. That's $120 Million a year. From the last public data in 2012, they had 26,000 employees. That would average $4,600 per employee. A lot of them are part time. Let's use 1500 hours per year for each. This will help account for the fact that managers would get bigger raises.

Would $3 an hour extra really get that much better employee? Because of the part time nature of the job, I don't think paying ten something an hour vs. a little over minimum wage will really make a difference. You still won't be in the range where normal people can make a living on that wage and part time hours.

Besides, if you carefully read the article it says "landlords often shouldering some of the cost." The translation of that is that for the most part they are financing this by getting landlords to give them tenant improvement money in return for increased rent. Therefore, they will more likely spread the cost over 10 years which will half what they could give to each employee per year.

Posted by Terry Monohan (Member # 8285) on 07-29-2014, 10:54 AM:

Now what is AMC going to do with the recline seats when they get a bad movie and the old people think they are at home and fall asleep plus snore. Maybe the loud soundtrack will drown out the sleepers. In San Francisco's only two AMC theatres all the seats are old and very dirty. So new seats are welcome but please skip the recline home type seats. Dust off the top of the surround speakers at the AMC SF cinemas, they are filled with white dirty dust and clean the inside before you put in new seats and reduce the seating, that will be a big mistake on a weekend when many shows are sold out.

Posted by Terry Lynn-Stevens (Member # 7349) on 07-29-2014, 10:55 AM:

quote:
What AMC is doing is nice but, to me, it seems more like they are trying to use a helicopter just to cross the street. Now, THAT is crazy! [Big Grin]

I think it is a good idea, I like putting my feet up and relaxing in a lazy-boy chair is much more relaxing than sitting up right in a fixed theater seat.

Sure I don't like the surcharge they will be applying to the ticket price, but kudos to AMC for at least trying something.

I think the exhibition industry needs something that will spark interest in going to the movies again. I do agree with hiring better employees as well.

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 07-30-2014, 12:13 PM:

This is a new idea? Century's Fresh Meadows Theatre in Queens, NY, their flagship theatre in that borough, had plush, reclining seats. I don't know it the AMC seats go back farther than the Century seats, but they did go comfortably back and you were able to rock in them too. So not all theatre seats always force you to sit in a fixed, upright position. And this was WAY back in 1955; so if some young hot-shot AMC exec thinks he's come up with the next great new idea, he'd be sadly mistaken and hasn't bothered to check history. And guess what -- the Century theatres didn't charge extra for providing a comfortable cinema experience either. I guess back then they thought that's what an exhibitor was SUPPOSED to do.

And they were just as mistaken when they thought they had this unique great idea when they approaced WB wanting to run a WB cartoon before the feature films at AMC theatres. Like that wasn't also the norm 30 years prior. Only back then, those WB cartoons were full-frame, GORGEOUS TECHNICOLOR prints; unfortunately AMC couldn't be bothered playing 1.37:1 ar prints correctly, so they had WB strike pillared versions that would play with 1.85:1 plates and lenses...on Eastman stock. They ended that brainstorm quickly enough because those pillared 1.37 Eastman prints looked like crap and no one was impressed. I guess the young turk at AMC who thought up that idea was too young to ever have heard the expression, "If you are going to do something, do it right or don't do it at all."

There's nothing new under the sun.

Posted by Terry Lynn-Stevens (Member # 7349) on 07-30-2014, 04:00 PM:

quote: Frank Angel
There's nothing new under the sun.

You sound like you are taking this AMC upgrade personally or something.

Well, I have yet to see reclining seats with foot rests in my area. Cineplex does not do the foot rest thing for their VIP locations. I welcome the idea.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 07-30-2014, 07:24 PM:

He never said it was a BAD idea. Only that it wasn't a new idea.

I'm against the idea of full recliners because people will fall asleep in them. Having a place for people to put their feet up IS a good idea however.

Posted by Mark Strube (Member # 4190) on 08-01-2014, 09:21 PM:

I'm all for pointing out the ridiculousness of the newest gimmick to get more people through the door.

However, I think the "falling asleep" point is silly. Yes, let's not even consider improving the comfort of the theater to compete with an ever-evolving market, due to the chance that a few customers might get sleepy.

"We've always done it this way." A dangerous phrase, indeed.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 08-01-2014, 11:58 PM:

Where did I say I'm against improvements? I LOVE improvements if they make sense. You can make many, many improvements to a chair without it being in a reclining position.

- More legroom
- Softer cushions
- Better lumbar support
- Wider armrests
- Cupholders
- Wider seat pans
- Taller backs
- Backs that recline a little (not fully)

etc.

Where is it written that you must lay down to watch a movie? We already have to wake up 3 or 4 people a year in our upright seats. I'm sure that number would rise dramatically (along with the accompanying snoring) if we had full recliners.

Just because people do something at home doesn't necessarily make it a good idea. People like to watch movies in bed, too. Should a plex build a special auditorium with beds in it?

Posted by Martin McCaffery (Member # 37) on 08-02-2014, 02:04 PM:

^^ Yeah, don't want to clean up after that, either. [evil]

Posted by Buck Wilson (Member # 5885) on 08-02-2014, 03:06 PM:

Well, Cinetopia is building them with couches. More or less the same awful idea as beds.

Posted by Mike Frese (Member # 4361) on 08-02-2014, 03:08 PM:

quote:
Attendance in renovated AMC auditoriums has leapt 80%, on average,

Sounds like a good decision to me and they have some tests to show that.

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 08-02-2014, 03:53 PM:

Maybe AMC will change their slogan for "picture-perfect presentation" to the more accurate "movies for fat people."

Posted by Mark Strube (Member # 4190) on 08-02-2014, 05:58 PM:

quote: Buck Wilson
Well, Cinetopia is building them with couches. More or less the same awful idea as beds.

One of the single screen neighborhood theaters I manage is actually all couches. People love it, it's one of the big reasons they attend.

Posted by Terry Lynn-Stevens (Member # 7349) on 08-02-2014, 08:53 PM:

quote: Mark Strube
Yes, let's not even consider improving the comfort of the theater to compete with an ever-evolving market, due to the chance that a few customers might get sleepy.

I have to agree with you, if I had the choice of sitting in a theater that had option A) recliners (with foot rests) vs option B} a theater than just has regular seats or rockers (no foot rests), I am going with option A. I would even pay a premium surcharge for it.

quote: Mark Strube
.
"We've always done it this way." A dangerous phrase, indeed.

I gotta agree with you here as well.

Posted by Marcel Birgelen (Member # 6801) on 08-03-2014, 04:19 AM:

Personally, I don't get the deal with all those leather recliners and ultra-luxury seating. You're going to a movie, not some freakish two-hour slumber party where they also happen to play a movie...

Where's this all heading? A room of full-sized waterbeds? Free blankets for everyone and maybe also a bouncing castle in the back? A retractable roof, for when the sun is shining?

I'm all in favor for comfortable seating, just don't overdo it. Put more money into the quality and maintenance of the seats than into the gimmicks please.

For upgrades, I would focus on:
- Sufficient legroom so even tall people (like me) can stretch their legs from time to time and retracting your legs is sufficient to allow others pass by.
- Arm rests that are sufficiently wide, so you don't have to "negotiate" who's using it.
- Cup holders, I guess somewhat of a standard nowadays.
- Maybe some small kind of table tray in the front, where I can put stuff that doesn't fit into the cup holder or I can use in case both my neighbors decided the cup holder facing me is theirs.

Also, I'm not so fond of (fake) leather. I know that's easier to clean, but it feels way too clinical. I want my seat to be cuddly and huggable please.

Posted by Mike Frese (Member # 4361) on 08-04-2014, 04:13 PM:

quote:
quote: Buck Wilson
Well, Cinetopia is building them with couches. More or less the same awful idea as beds.
One of the single screen neighborhood theaters I manage is actually all couches. People love it, it's one of the big reasons they attend.

We had couches (and regular seats too) in 2 of our rooms and they were very popular.

My ideal theater would have both couches and nice theater seats (slightly reclining).

Funny how people who being critical of recliners and couches have never operated a theater with them.

Posted by Buck Wilson (Member # 5885) on 08-04-2014, 04:54 PM:

I never said they weren't popular, I said they were a bad idea.

Posted by Louis Bornwasser (Member # 3063) on 08-04-2014, 06:42 PM:

If your state requires "An Occupancy Certificate," you may not be able to do some of this. In particular, seats not attached to the floor and seats where the backs recline enough to block access. I will leave the discussion of fire treated materials to another discussion.

Won't happen in Kentucky, Ohio, Indiana and anywhere north of Virginia on the coast.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 08-04-2014, 07:04 PM:

quote: Mike Frese
Funny how people who being critical of recliners and couches have never operated a theater with them.

And I never said they wouldn't be popular either, I just said people would fall asleep in them. I base this on my own particular body, which tends to start going to sleep even if I close my eyes in a standard theater seat. If I close my eyes in my recliner at home, I'm out within 2 minutes. And a lot of our patrons are in my same age group.

There is a theater in the small(er) town of Broadus, MT which had all "couch" seating. The couches were all donated by people and they were indeed popular. The place is closed now though, or at least it was the last time I was through that town. (Never converted to digital.)

Posted by Sam Graham (Member # 2889) on 08-04-2014, 10:52 PM:

**has actually fallen asleep in an AMC recliner**

Posted by Frank Cox (Member # 6258) on 08-04-2014, 11:37 PM:

I used to have a guy who would come to the show one day each week, regardless of what movie was playing. He would sit in the back row and sleep. After the show I would wake him up and he would leave.

He disappeared after a few years, though; haven't seen him in over a decade now.

I don't think he ever actually saw a movie here.

Posted by Allan Young (Member # 6332) on 08-07-2014, 01:51 AM:

quote: Mike Blakesley
People like to watch movies in bed, too. Should a plex build a special auditorium with beds in it?

It's not a multiplex, but the Electric Cinema in London removed 14 rows of seats to provide six beds in the front row...

Posted by Marcel Birgelen (Member # 6801) on 08-07-2014, 02:27 AM:

Ah! Look, free blankets included!

I don't see the bouncing castle though? And does the roof open too? And where's the pool?

I guess London is sufficiently large to accommodate a bunch of oddball cinemas, but I sure hope this will not become the defacto PLF-premium-deluxe-whatever standard of the future.

quote: Frank Cox
I used to have a guy who would come to the show one day each week, regardless of what movie was playing. He would sit in the back row and sleep. After the show I would wake him up and he would leave.

Did you ever ask him if he wants a ticket for the next show too, so he could continue to sleep? [Smile]

Sleeping people often aren't a problem, as long as they don't start to snore. Still, I see quite a lot of people fall asleep in an upright position, so I have to agree with Mike, this will dramatically increase in a lying down position. It will probably also increase the amount of R-rated stuff happening inside the theater and not just on screen...

Maybe you could include some kind of a Taser into the seats that gives out an electric shock now and then. You could even market it as E-Shock, an added dimension to your movie experience.

Posted by Lyle Romer (Member # 1266) on 08-07-2014, 07:02 AM:

quote: Frank Cox
I used to have a guy who would come to the show one day each week, regardless of what movie was playing. He would sit in the back row and sleep. After the show I would wake him up and he would leave.

Many years ago in the mid 90's we had something similar where I worked. There was an elderly guy that would come to a movie every Saturday night. He would always ask to sit in the very back row and ask us to let him in early to make sure he could (we accommodated him). He would say to wake him when the movie was over.

Before the show he would talk to some of the staff and tell (likely made up) stories. I don't know how much of the movie he would watch but he'd always be asleep at the end.

I guess he was just lonely and it was his way to get out of the house and have some interaction with people.

Posted by Buck Wilson (Member # 5885) on 08-07-2014, 11:56 AM:

As silly as the beds are, they look well executed in that venue and it would also solve the issue that plagues the front of theaters. It would be much more comfortable to stare almost straight up at a screen if you're laying down!

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 08-07-2014, 02:21 PM:

There is an inherent sanitary problem with those lounges -- how long before all the natural oils and all the gunk and grease people put in their hair is going to stain those head pillows? Do I really want to put my head on a pillow that hundreds of other people have before me? Can anyone say "head lice?" I think there will be some very real practical problems that will arise once these things have be in use for a year or two, sure they look clean and pristine now, but give it a year.

Plus, if a patron spills a soda in a regular seat, most of it usually will fall on the patron or the floor; a patrons spills ANYTHING on those plush couches and it's going to spill on that material itself. That material better be made with highly effective stain resistive material or they will get to look pretty grungy pretty fast.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 08-07-2014, 02:43 PM:

I'd bet 10 pounds (since it's London) that if I was to lay down on one of those beds my feet would hang off the end. Not that I would notice because I would DEFINITELY be asleep before the previews were over. Not that it would matter, because watching a movie by laying at the foot of the screen like that seems about the worst way to see a movie. And if you're far enough back that you're not looking straight up, then your neck is probably going to get tired from your head being perpendicular to your body. I know this because it happens to me at home when I watch a movie in bed.

Theater seats are designed the way they are for good reasons. The recent trend to make them wider and cushier is a good one, but they should still retain the same basic design because that design is conducive to the purpose they're built for....watching a movie on a screen.

Even those gigantic plush chairs in the picture above are sort of dopey because if you had a date, she's going to be sitting three feet away from you in the next seat and possibly with a lamp between or in front of you. How is that going to be any fun?

Posted by Sam Graham (Member # 2889) on 08-07-2014, 04:39 PM:

quote: Allan Young
It's not a multiplex, but the Electric Cinema in London removed 14 rows of seats to provide six beds in the front row.

That would be the best porno theatre ever.

Posted by Lyle Romer (Member # 1266) on 08-07-2014, 04:54 PM:

quote: Mike Blakesley
Even those gigantic plush chairs in the picture above are sort of dopey because if you had a date, she's going to be sitting three feet away from you in the next seat and possibly with a lamp between or in front of you. How is that going to be any fun?

If you have a date, you sit (lay) in the bed at the front. That's how it will be fun!

Posted by Richard P. May (Member # 3598) on 08-07-2014, 05:27 PM:

Is the picture being shown on the ceiling?

Posted by Mike Frese (Member # 4361) on 08-08-2014, 11:37 PM:

My experience from operating a theater with 20 year old seats in 2 rooms and both in 2 other rooms (75% couches):

The amount of "R-rated" activity is no different than 20 year old seats.

The number of people who fall asleep is no different.

The number of soda spills was not significant either. But, we used couches with vinyl/fake leather materials.

Why do this if you are in a competitive market?

from the original post:
1) Attendance in renovated AMC auditoriums has leapt 80%, on average

2) Box-office revenue was up more than 60% at the 37 AMC theaters that had been fully reseated in the first quarter of this year, said Mr. Lopez.

As far as the angle to the screen with front row couches: of they are close to the screen as expected, that should be a good angle to see the screen.

The tall rockers that have been installed in most new theaters are tall enough to to go over your head. So they are collecting oils/dead hair too. How often do those get cleaned?

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 08-09-2014, 09:20 PM:

Yes, high-back seats are installed in SOME theatres -- not a huge percentage I'd guess, but that's my point -- how often are they routinely cleaned? Which brings us to the Friday night 20/20 broadcast(ABC). They did a report where they did incognito swab tests of theatre floors, seat arm rests, seat upholstery and (gasp!) the floors. Not surprisingly, the micro-orgamnisms and bacteria they found on the seats were, in a word, disgusting -- everthing from ecoli to streptoccocus to human feces. They made a point that theatre seats are never cleaned or cleaned rarely. All I am saying is that if they install these push seats (I am assuming "plush" precludes them using easily cleanable vinyl), they really need to NOT let these couch seats decend into a kind of CDC deadly organism storage units. AMC has to institute a RIGOROUS upholstery cleaning routine.

What was even more disturbing in this piece was that they pointed out three things the general public does not want to hear -- many theatre have vermin problems like 1) cockroaches (they showed a picture of a dozen of them scurrying about the floor), mice (pictures of them too), but the one thing that will keep hords of people out of the theatre -- BED BUGS (a picture of one crawling on someone's hand.)

As for those rose-colored quotes about increases in attendence...

quote: Terry Lynn-Stevens
Attendance in renovated AMC auditoriums has leapt 80%, on average, despite the drastic reduction in capacity to sometimes fewer than 70 seats.

Are they kidding? 80% -- what kind of crap business were they doing before?

quote: Mike Frese was the last to post
Box-office revenue was up more than 60% at the 37 AMC theaters that had been fully reseated in the first quarter of this year, said Mr. Lopez.

So attendence was up 80% but box office revenue was up only 60% -- that's quite a trick.

quote: Terry Lynn-Stevens
Mr. Lopez acknowledged that the biggest attendance boosts would come in theaters that were weak performers, some of which were losing money.

So Mr. Lopez thinks that it will be reclining seats that will turn a loss-leader into a high performing venue? If he thinks the seats make the difference between a great theatre experience and one that no one wants to attend, he needs to be in another business.

Posted by Geoff Jones (Member # 3668) on 08-09-2014, 09:29 PM:

quote: Frank Angel
Are they kidding? 80% -- what kind of crap business were they doing before?

Heh - maybe they are reporting a capacity increase.

Before: 1000 seats/ 200 people = 20% capacity
After: 100 seats/ 100 people = 100% capacity

80% attendance increase! [Smile]

Posted by Martin Brooks (Member # 1269) on 08-09-2014, 09:57 PM:

I can understand the possibility that weekday attendance might be better. The seats could be an attraction, especially to those horny young people and that could help fill the theatre.

But on weekends, when the vast majority of the business is, unless no one was showing up to the theatre even then, I can't see how there wouldn't be a big decline in business, since most of the seats are gone.

As far as overall declines in business, what did the industry expect when they make movies available in other media weeks after it appears in a theatre? The theatrical window used to be a year. Now it's about a month. And there are studio executives pushing for day and date. Somehow they have it in their heads that this doesn't cause cannibalization of theatrical revenues.

The problem with movies being available everywhere (cable, web, Redbox, VOD, Hulu, Netflix, iTunes, etc., etc.) is that it makes them disposable and ordinary (as do the incessant reboots and horrible films). When films are disposable and available in Redbox for a dollar, it cheapens their value and their worth to the culture.

One thing I noticed when I visited an AMC in Queens that had gone this route is that because there are so few seats, it's actually much harder to find an ideal seat. Also, the seats are "reserved", so you have to pick your seat at the box-office.

Posted by Lyle Romer (Member # 1266) on 08-10-2014, 06:38 AM:

quote: Frank Angel
Which brings us to the Friday night 20/20 broadcast(ABC). They did a report where they did incognito swab tests of theatre floors, seat arm rests, seat upholstery and (gasp!) the floors. Not surprisingly, the micro-orgamnisms and bacteria they found on the seats were, in a word, disgusting -- everthing from ecoli to streptoccocus to human feces. They made a point that theatre seats are never cleaned or cleaned rarely.

I wonder what they would find if they did the same thing at restaurants. I never wear the same pants to sit on my furniture at home that I've worn to sit in any public place. As soon as I get home, my pants or shorts go off and a clean pair of shorts (unless it is abnormally cold in Florida) go on.

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 08-10-2014, 07:31 AM:

Martin, you're right of course, the distribution patterns which are totally in the control of the producers, have crippled small circuits and the independents, so in essence, only 3 mega chains run the exhibition industry. Evidently the Justice Department has been asleep at the wheel for decades on this. I guess the Paramount Consent decrees were so exhausting for them that they have had to rest for the next 70 years.

BUT, that consolidation potentially brings unintended power; the big three EASILY have enough muscle to add a clause to the 'Master Contract" before they sign it -- The "Producers agree without qualification or encumbrance, that the rental of the Motion Picture shall be exclusive of all other ancillary markets including but not limited to, cable, satellite, cell phone service, optical disc, or any other means of exhibition other than motion picture cinemas for a period of not less than four months from the date of the first playdate. This may be modified jointly by consent of both parties." A contract has to be written and agreed to by BOTH parties.

NATO should have done this decades ago, but exhibition never said squat; they just laid back and accepted whatever was in the contract handed to them by distribution. They didn't even whisper, "Be gentle, and please use some lube." It would only take any two of the mega exhibitors to refuses to play a title, and that would be the end of those 70, 80 million dollar grosses on opening weekend which the studios simply can't live without. Exhibition has ALWAYS had the power to control the rental terms if only they weren't such greedy chickenshits; they just never had the balls to do it.

Why do the studios get to write the contract terms? All exhibitition had to do from day one was to hand the distributor THEIR contract and their terms and say, "Hey, you want to play your movie in this theatre, here are our rental terms and conditions you need to agree to in order for us to rent screen time to you. Sign on the dotted line."

Of course that would mean exhibitors would have had to be united, maybe form an industry organization, maybe call it something catchy, like NATO or something...oh, wait, done that. But it would have to have BACKBONE; the members would not give into GREED and sneak off and capitulate. And of course the only muscle the studios have is that they could withhold product...and sell it where? To those ancillary markets alone? Does anyone really think they would be willing to take that risk? More importantly, would the many investors? There is no studio system any more and even that fact gives exhibition strength -- Jack Warner might have had the grit to try to starve out exhibition, but today it's all banks and investors bankrolling pictures, and they are not about to risk THEIR money so the picture they have invested in can play for a dollar on a cell phone. Just look at opening credits at how many "studios" claim to be presenting a film -- those are all investors.

BTW, about NATO -- they are such wussy wusses that when ABC asked them to comment on the 20/20 dirty theatre story, they "declined the invitation." Usually when a corporation is caught with their pants down, they opt not to appear on camera, mostly because on camera a reporter can ask questions they know they can't answer, plus they have their pants down, but at least they send some nonsense written statement basically saying, "No, you got it wrong...we're innocent of anything you said...unless you have pictures, then we were tricked into it; if you have video, then we have no comment."

Last observation -- this is an AMC idea? And it's good they are at least trying to do SOMETHING that will make them stand out, but then they admit they this isn't so much a way to make the theatre experience unique, but just another way to fleece the public even more by using new seats as an excuse to raise prices.

As to the original question of how well will these seats be sanitized -- just let's remember what chain it was that had to close its doors for days at its largest NYC theatre to get rid of BED BUGS. Yes, it was AMC's Time Square location. Guess the systematic cleaning routine of their REGULAR seats was a FAIL. Imagine what a more difficult challenge it will be for them to clean those PLUSH couches. You can just rename them Bed Bug Hotels. Oh my.

Posted by Martin McCaffery (Member # 37) on 08-10-2014, 02:26 PM:

quote: Martin Brooks
When films are disposable and available in Redbox for a dollar, it cheapens their value and their worth to the culture.

I'd love to see a chart sometime as to when seeing movies became cheaper than reading a comic book [evil]

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 08-11-2014, 12:01 AM:

Well just find out when Redbox came into being... They are the ones who started the idea of renting movies for a dollar out of a pop machine.

Posted by Martin McCaffery (Member # 37) on 08-11-2014, 08:09 AM:

I think comic books, or graphic novels, got more expensive first. If you go back to the orgins of comics they were about a nickel, which was probably kids admission, but about 1/2 adult admission. And we had dollar movie houses long after comics passed the $1 price. Add all the usual inflation and averages and you'd have an interesting chart. Inasmuch as so many hit movies are comic good based now, I'm sure we can draw some deep, meaningful insight [Wink]

Posted by Randy Stankey (Member # 64) on 08-11-2014, 11:22 AM:

To be fair, I like the idea of comfy chairs in a theater but let's face it. Comparing an AMC to a first rate movie theater is like comparing McDonald's to a five star restaurant. What they are doing amounts to little more than putting lipstick on a pig.

It doesn't matter whether a theater has wooden, folding chairs or waterbeds. If the theater is run like a cattle ranch, virtually any improvement will only have a short term effect on business. Over the long haul, customers will go back to their usual behavior once the novelty wears off. Then the theater will have to install the newest gimmick to lure customers back.

It's a never-ending cycle with lots and lots of money spent for no good reason.

Theaters... or any businesses... are better off paying attention to customers, making sure they have what they want each time they come to watch the movie.

If I was going to build a theater, of course I'd put in comfy chairs but I wouldn't mortgage the business just to have some whiz-bang gimmick. I'd rather spend money to hire good employees who know how to take care of customers.

I would spend less money in the long run and I'd would make more money over the long haul.

Posted by Russ Levinson (Member # 7185) on 08-11-2014, 12:18 PM:

My theater is 2 miles from one of the first AMC to go with the recliners. They are up over 70% revenue, however it is very difficult to get a seat there without buying in advance. Most young people love the theater despite the high prices. The reviews are almost all excellent online, but some complaints about cleanliness, too many sold out shows, high prices. They are now forcing people to see 3D shows whenever they can(Only 1 2D Ninjas show). My theater numbers are actually up due to the fewer seats, high prices, and the forced 3D at this particular AMC. We focus on lower prices, comfy seats, and mostly 2D shows. NYC,in general, has far too few theaters, but most of Queens actually has a good amount of theaters and screens.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 08-11-2014, 12:28 PM:

quote: Frank Angel
BTW, about NATO -- they are such wussy wusses that when ABC asked them to comment on the 20/20 dirty theatre story, they "declined the invitation." Usually when a corporation is caught with their pants down, they opt not to appear on camera

It's totally understandable that NATO doesn't comment on this thing. NATO is just a club that has members. They have NO control or even knowledge of the cleaning practices of their member companies so they can't go around making claims or promises about this situation. Besides, from past experience they probably know that if they argue the point, then the media will just blow it up further. They're better to shut up about it and let the story go away on its own.

The companies that were named in the story need to address it and it should be a wakeup call to the whole industry to take a look at their cleaning practices and fix any problems they have.

I do NOT understand why the media hates the theater industry so much. Why do they keep singling us out for this kind of thing when EVERY other industry serving food has the exact same kinds of problems? Where are the stories about disgusting floors in restaurants, not to mention disgusting seats, ketchup bottles, door handles, and such? Don't even get me started on theme parks, traveling carnivals, stadiums, shopping malls and other places where filthy humans gather (and eat) in bunches.

Posted by Russ Levinson (Member # 7185) on 08-11-2014, 12:45 PM:

Also,bed bugs are not caused by dirt or anything other than people bringing them in on themselves. Its common anywhere large amounts of people gather or a high turnover of customers. NYC just had to remove and clean several subway cars that were infested in the conductors area of the cars. I have heard that the big chains bring in the bed bug dogs monthly to try and catch it early. Does anyone else do this?

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 08-11-2014, 01:11 PM:

To be fair, ABC's story did include restaurants. ABC's Nightline I believe it was (possibly 20/20) did a similar report going everywhere -- public transportation, kid's arcades, hospitals and restaurants -- a particularly big deal was made out of a restaurant where the busboy used the same dirty wash rag going from table to table for his whole shift. The sample from that rag was particularly disgusting. They even swabbed houshold items in the reporter's home which was as filty as most of the other places they tested; her motification was profound.

Thing is, seems the WORLD is just teaming with germs and contact with these microbes is unavoidable, but the reality is, thankfully we usually deal with them pretty very well given our incredibly efficient, built-in anti-microbe protection -- our immune system. Without it we probably wouldn't live out the week. Problem arises when that system is compromised as it is in children and the elderly, and of course people who are sick. Our bodies usually laugh these "threats" off. How many people get deathly sick from touching the arm rest of a theatre seat? But do a culture on it and you get a dramatic shocking "news" story.

And while most of us won't get sick from 99% of the organisms we encounter every day, that's no reason for establishments not to keep things as sanitary as posssible.

Personally I worry more about what the theatre does with its unsold popcorn at the end of the night than whose dirty hands touched my arm rest before me. Do they throw out the left-over or do they collect it and store it for use the next day? If they do store it for reuse, who handles it and under what conditions getting it to and from storage and how sanitary are the storage containers? Are they reused every night causing them to get coated with oil that eventually will go rancid? Is it stored where vermin can get at it? Popcorn is the equivilant of a Peter Lugar's porterhouse steak to mice and roaches.

I am much less conderned about germs on the theatre seats as I am for that other issue they brought up; my immune system can deal with the germs on the seats but it can't protect me from BED BUGS in the seat. Evidently Manhattan and Brooklyn are the epicenter for the bed bug scourge. NYC BB Concentration Map Eeghads!

Posted by Mike Frese (Member # 4361) on 08-14-2014, 07:42 AM:

I would imagine that pretty much all theaters have the same sort of problems with cleanliness (as well as our homes).

How often do you steam clean (or whatever will kill bedbugs, lice, etc) your seats?

How often do you mop you auditorium floors? Do you feel confident that they are clean enough to pass the news story's tests?

Posted by Marcel Birgelen (Member # 6801) on 08-15-2014, 02:54 AM:

quote: Randy Stankey
Theaters... or any businesses... are better off paying attention to customers, making sure they have what they want each time they come to watch the movie.

If I was going to build a theater, of course I'd put in comfy chairs but I wouldn't mortgage the business just to have some whiz-bang gimmick. I'd rather spend money to hire good employees who know how to take care of customers.

I would spend less money in the long run and I'd would make more money over the long haul.

While I completely agree with you, the reality is that you need to keep your business afloat while that novelty gimmick of your competition wears off. It's also hard to judge how long it takes to wear off. Unfortunately, many smaller scale businesses don't have the financial backbone to weather those kind of storms.

quote: Mike Frese
I would imagine that pretty much all theaters have the same sort of problems with cleanliness (as well as our homes).

Like with all of those kind of sensational shows, if you keep looking for some fabricated sensation, you will always find it somewhere.

If you want to succeed in such kind of test, you would need to steam-clean your theater after each and every show or maybe pass all your customers trough a decontamination lock before they set one step in your lobby...

Just like Frank, I'm more worried about the hygienic conditions of the food and beverages, than the germs in the seat. It might trigger all kinds of revolting images if you think about it, but our humanly bodies are perfectly capable of coping with the normal load of germs. We live in a germ-ridden world and all those years of evolution* have made sure we're able to cope with it just fine. Actually, drastically reducing those germs will negatively impact your immune system in the long run. So, you can safely put out your HAZMAT suit while visiting your local theater.

* Depending on your beliefs: God gave us the power to fight those evil critters upon creation. The effectiveness has been proven in at least the last few thousand years.